This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Sounds like something a bunch of Feelers who are easily intimidated made up so they could tell us Thinkers that they're just as intelligent as we are, but in a different way. Not that they can't be, but the rubbish argument is pretty much an insult to intelligent people regardless of temperament.

...I guess the above statement means my EQ is pretty low. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Then again, I've always seen the whole multiple intelligences business in that light.

I found that if I take serotonin-enhancing drugs, my EQ is through the roof, at least as measured in the abilities model. Otherwise, it's dismal. There is no equivalent drug for IQ.

So I suspect the emotional brain hardware is far more primitive and easily to manipulate than the intellectual wiring. Indeed, animals seem to have a lot of emotions going on. But not a lot of intellect.

But this EQ idea does capture the basic truth that a salesperson is gonna be a lot more adept at the popularity contest than a mathematician. No reason I see not to slap a label on it and start quantifying.

I'd think because of an INTJ's ability to not attach themselves/get affected by the emotions of others, our intuitive, rational thinking, we should actually be very good at managing the emotions/direction of groups of people (and hence have quite good EQ).

I'd think because of an INTJ's ability to not attach themselves/get affected by the emotions of others, our intuitive, rational thinking, we should actually be very good at managing the emotions/direction of groups of people (and hence have quite good EQ).

Meh, I'd consider that more to be strength of will and initiative exacting influence over their unused mental zones, rather than empathy. The sheep dynamic is what I call it. Weak/unfocused willpower and a tendency to be led. It seems that for some people, rationale is a weakly-developed subconscious tertiary task.

Meh, I'd consider that more to be strength of will and initiative exacting influence over their unused mental zones, rather than empathy. The sheep dynamic is what I call it. Weak/unfocused willpower and a tendency to be led. It seems that for some people, rationale is a weakly-developed subconscious tertiary task.

I think quite a few presidents were intj's.

Nah...
You need to have a way of being able to relate to the people you lead to be a successful leader. *Because to be a successful leader is to be one who can lead ones with strong will as well, not just those with no opinion. *Imagine a military leader, or a sports team coach, the prep talks; they have to appeal to every one of the people they're talking to.

I must say, I don't have much of a will to make others do what I want; it's too much trouble. *But when it comes down to being forced to lead, I can do a damn good job of it.

The lack of will to lead is part of my introversion, but my ability to lead has to do with my N which controls my ability to relate, T keeps me from going overboard in terms of compassion/empathy and promotes control. Introversion is seperate from intuition and thinking.

People with a large range of interests are said to have high EQ.
I think most NT's should have high EQ...

People with a large range of interests are said to have high EQ.
I think most NT's should have high EQ...

It could be actual relation. I always thought of it to be more like defining what appeals to them, pacing, then leading through manipulation, rather than actually relating with them as equals. Then again, I have very little genuine experience in this so-called 'relation'.

It could be actual relation. I always thought of it to be more like defining what appeals to them, pacing, then leading through manipulation, rather than actually relating with them as equals. Then again, I have very little genuine experience in this so-called 'relation'.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suggest you all check it out so we know what kind of emotional "intelligence" they are talking about. This test is supposed to be one of the most scientifically accurate ones. It consists of questions about you and how you feel about things, and also a more sensible portion in which you must correctly judge a people's facial expressions and body language. It is scored on the unrealistically restricted scale of 55 to 155.

My own experience with this test: The first time I took it, I answered honestly and scored 94. I was a bit offended by this; I have good control of my emotions, have a generally positive (but of course still logical and skeptical) outlook, and am relatively socially savvy.

So to prove that I was smarter than the person who wrote the test, I took it again, and this time I answered with all the weird baloney that I thought they were looking for. (I never get angry, I feel comfortable professing my love to strangers, I burst into tears on a regular basis, I am never irritated by anything, etc.) Of course, this was the emotional profile of a psychopath.

I scored 153. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My reasoning: The writer of the test had designed the questions to be answered on a scale (many on a an 11-point scale, some shorter). But it's difficult to decide where on the scale the ideal answer should be, so the "correct" answers were those at the correct extreme ends of the scale. So when I took the test, I chose the most extreme responses, which is why my above examples sound so ridiculous.

This scoring made no sense for a lot of the questions, especially those that compared certain scenarios to each other. For example, a few questions were asking how effective certain solutions were for an awkward social situation. When I took the test the first time, I entered reasonable comparisons, and because some "solutions" were downright destructive, I scored them as "totally ineffective" and scored the nominally ineffective solutions as nearer to the center of the scale. Second time 'round, I declared that the moderate options were just as bad as the outrageous ones, and got a higher score for saying so.

My point: The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them. They promote both emotional instability and impossible lack of emotion in a terribly contradictory fashion. I do believe that emotional intelligence is a valid measure of success and is something that should be strived for, but these tests do not define it correctly. There should be a valid test (maybe written by an INTJ?To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) using proper social norms and healthy reasoning.

I would just like to clear up one thing first. Though, many INTJ's seem to have this idea of an emotionless robot paradigm in their heads, we're still humans. We may not be governed in our thoughts by emotions, however, they're still there. Even when working and problem solving with others, its important to understand that emotions can be there and that they are real. A solutions might not be the most logical answer, however, it can be the most effective when looking at from a different perspective.

I'd consider myself to have a fairly high emotional intelligence. Part of it is internal, being able to accurately understand your own feels and opinions about something before they start to cascade or snowball. I would have to credit my own understanding of this to the ala-non reading I did as a kid. This thinking about emotions brought an immense amount of stability to my life.

Externally, this really plays a huge role in effective communication. I have a high extroverted intuition score, which I feel is effective in understanding what people are saying, even when they might not be clear in what they're communicating. It can be just as important to hear how someone is communicating, as it is what they're communicating.

I am actually fairly emotional but that's not the part of my brain that does the decision-making.

That said, I scored a 93 on the test. :P

It's important to be able to get along with people and understand what's going on. I get when people are upset and usually when I should back off, I may get angry but I know how I react so I can take steps to make intense emotions the least damaging as possible. And that's the INTJ way. That said, beats in conversations totally throw me off, especially when it's about something that I don't care less about.

I do agree that the test is, well, bull. Not sore because I had a low score, but I noticed the same things that TheLastMohican did. The touchy-feely people need to enlist people who actually know how to write tests and program computers -- likely, INTJs.

This subject is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. I've been reading the book, 'Emotional Intelligence', by Daniel Goleman. One useful idea he introduces in the book is that once you get up to a certain level in an organization like a corporation, everyone is pretty smart and technically adept. At this level, those qualities aren't big differentiators. What tends to separate the really good people at that level and the not so good people is how well one gets along with others. I think that he has a valid point.

The fact is that it's not always enough to have the right answers and be 'smart'. Outside of school, the right answers are still worthless if you can't get other people to buy in and support them. In this sense, it can be even more important to consider how you present the message than the content of the message itself. This is where the application of EQ comes in.

The reality is that most people don't care all that much about searching for truth or getting the 'right' answer. What they care about is feeling good about themselves. As INTJ's, I think we have a tendency to lose sight of that sometimes. At least personally, I tend to be very blunt with what I say and neglect to consider the emotions of the person I'm speaking to. I don't know if INTJ's tend to have a good or bad EQ. I suspect that as a group we would fall on the bad part of the scale. But, I also think it's worthwhile to try to get better at being able to relate with other people. I'm working on it now by trying to be more aware of the emotional states of people as I talk with them.

To me, EQ is the ability to be touchy-feely to people and probably let go of anger and grudges. Mine's 118 according to the tickle test.

Perceiving emotions - the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts- including the ability to identify one’s own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
Using emotions - the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
Understanding emotions - the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
Managing emotions - the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

I still think that EQ is for people who want to feel good about themselves though. "Hey, MY EQ is 140. It's the attitude that counts, not smartness! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts."

I feel uneasy in situations where I am expected to display affection.

ETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.I think this question will totally kill my score.

I have not read the book on EQ, though it has come across my path a few times.. but i have read critics about it from readings on critical reasoning.. so i will not comments on my own to be fair to the whole subject but i guess, INTJs could well tend not to do well on the subject of EQ..

Some excerpts from the following site:

I shall argue that it does make sense to speak of emotions as being, in some given context or other, "intelligent" or not, and, consequently, that it does make sense to speak of emotional intelligence. However, I will also suggest that the way the concept of emotional intelligence is now being popularized--by psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), in his book Emotional Intelligence--is fundamentally flawed.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't understand this EQ test. If you weren't irritated or upset a lot, how could you cry a lot? And so many things. And there's a huge difference between not crying because you aren't brought to tears easily and not crying because you believe that it's a sign of weakness. (I tend to ask myself, 'would it hurt myself in this situation to start crying' before I do but sometimes it happens anyway.)

Does this test need what you honestly feel or rather does it want how you try to behave to other people? You ought to get some credit if you have the urge to flee when people get touchy-feely but decide to suck it up anyway, for their sake.

Well, being proud of the 71 score might or might not be valid. See, I'm pretty sure I aced the section where I had to read faces and body language, and that's a good thing. (I was actually surprised to find out how well I did on that part.) So if you know you aced that, then about 80-100 should be ideal, because you probably were "wrong" to the appropriate degree on the scale questions. But if you did what they wanted with those questions, then you flunked the reading section, which is not good.

Haphazard,
Please...don't even try to understand it. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The thing about INTJs is that we do feel emotions (probably not as strongly as most others), but we do not have the need to show them nearly as much, if at all. We do not go around talking about them as if we think other people want to hear all about our mental disturbances. Those who do not have this trait might be a bit jealous, in my theory.

I agree with those who say or imply that EQ is largely a cop out for those lacking real intelligence.

I also think that preoccupation with it represents a losers' charter for :- conformists, brown-nosers, surface skaters, social manipulators, the politically correct brigade, and all those who duck or fudge necessary tough decisions on the grounds that it may upset or offend someone.

I agree with those who say or imply that EQ is largely a cop out for those lacking real intelligence.

You know, I'd say the same with IQ tests!
They are so easy to figure out, always a repetitive pattern. Even for a totally random, emotional ENFP like I am.

I'd say I'm not the most gifted amongst ENFPs, I only obtained 132 in EQ.
But this was interesting, as long as you consider this test only as a little game, no more, no less. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intelligence has nothing to do with MBTI type (if ever it could be clearly defined) but it seems EQ does.
A proof that demonstrates how vastly flawed is this test, doesn't it? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So to prove that I was smarter than the person who wrote the test, I took it again, and this time I answered with all the weird baloney that I thought they were looking for. (I never get angry, I feel comfortable professing my love to strangers, I burst into tears on a regular basis, I am never irritated by anything, etc.) Of course, this was the emotional profile of a psychopath.

I scored 153. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't believe you. Not a single word.

You were jealous and annoyed, that's all. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My point: The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them. They promote both emotional instability and impossible lack of emotion in a terribly contradictory fashion. I do believe that emotional intelligence is a valid measure of success and is something that should be strived for, but these tests do not define it correctly. There should be a valid test (maybe written by an INTJ?) using proper social norms and healthy reasoning.

Do you really consider yourself as an intelligent person, just because you failed miserably at this test??? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ridiculous!

That's one of the most immature answer I have read so far. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You were jealous and annoyed, that's all. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you really consider yourself as an intelligent person, just because you failed miserably at this test??? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ridiculous!

That's one of the most immature answer I have read so far. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The way you want to justifiy, and justify, and justify...

I am not lying. I also was not jealous. I was annoyed, because I wish I could find a valid test.

I never said that I considered myself intelligent because I "failed miserably" on the test. I did not fail miserably, anyway. I did ace the one good section that was validly scored, and in the others I gave answers that were reasonable when compared to each other, not just extreme in all ways.

I will not bother trying to prove all this to you; if you just experiment with the Queendom EQ test yourself you will see that I am telling the truth. I did answer on the correct [I]side[I] of the range, but I did not make all my answers the most extreme, hence the low score. This test in particular is flawed mainly in the computerized format of scoring (the questions are not that bad).

And by the way, I am intelligent and mature. An immature response would have been to declare the test to be entirely stupid and feel deeply wounded by the low score. Instead I concluded that the score was unreasonable and went back to find out why, and then discovered the problem, which was the limited ability of the computer system.

You know, I'd say the same with IQ tests!
They are so easy to figure out, always a repetitive pattern. Even for a totally random, emotional ENFP like I am.

I'd say I'm not the most gifted amongst ENFPs, I only obtained 132 in EQ.
But this was interesting, as long as you consider this test only as a little game, no more, no less. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intelligence has nothing to do with MBTI type (if ever it could be clearly defined) but it seems EQ does.
A proof that demonstrates how vastly flawed is this test, doesn't it? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that both types of intelligence have a lot to do with personality type. Personality type describes the way we think, and IQ tests test how good we are at thinking in whatever way. Therefore those of certain personality types would tend to have higher or lower EQ and IQ. IQ focuses on problem solving, pattern recognition, spatial abilities, etc., mostly stuff a computer could do. EQ is more complex, and varies a lot more with cultural influences.

I consider both IQ and EQ bullshit, but I have to agree that this particular EQ test doesn't seem to be very well written or at least scored in an inconsistent manner. It may be computer error, or it may be human error. The difference between computer IQ tests and computer EQ tests is that with IQ, there's one right answer, and with EQ, many of the questions are personal and it's so easy to lie and forget about yourself, along with the computer error and that compounds the falliability of the score.

It's like a computer trying to grade a literary analysis of Huckleberry Finn compared to a sheet of math problems. It's impossible, or at least impossible to do well.